My Suggested Changes to the Vision Rules

[Merudo]

Problem 1. Looking Beyond an Obscured Area: By RAW, a heavily obscured area only blinds characters who attempt to see something inside the obscured area.

This leads to some absurd results, for example with the Fog Cloud spell:


A character in the middle of a Fog Cloud can see perfectly well as long as they are looking at objects outside of the cloud.
A character outside the cloud can't see inside the Fog Cloud - but they can see what's behind it!


Solution: To fix these issues, I suggest adding the two following sentences after the third paragraph of the Vision and Light (p. 183) section:


An area may be obscured because of materials or effects that actively block sight, such as a smoke screen or a curtain. Looking beyond such an obscured area is difficult; a creature attempting to do so suffer the same penalties as if it were looking into the obscured area.

I like this definition but I think it could be improved; in particular, I don't like the expression "actively block sight", which is intended to cover most forms of obscuration such as Fog Cloud & foliage, but not dim light & darkness. Maybe some of you have suggestions?

Problem 2. Lightly Obscured Area: In addition, I've noticed a problem with the definition of "lightly obscured area". The problem is the same as the pre-errata definition of heavily obscured area:


A character in dim light has disadvantage on Perception checks even if looking into a bright area.
A character in bright light suffers no disadvantage while looking into a lightly obscured area, such as an area covered by the Web spell.


Solution: To make the definition of lightly obscured area more logical and consistent with the one for heavily obscured area, I suggest replacing the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Vision and Light (p. 183) rules with the following:


A lightly obscured area, such as dim light, patchy fog, or moderate foliage, gives disadvantage to Wisdom (Perception) checks relying on sight and made to spot something inside the area.

Any suggestions to improve the wording would be appreciated!

[Astofel]

I don't see this as a problem that needs fixing. People with a even a touch of common sense will tell you that you can't see the other side of a Fog Cloud or area of Darkness regardless of what the rules say. I'd even place money on an AL DM, who is supposed to follow RAW as much as possible, ruling like this.

If anyone at my table seriously tries to argue that their vision can somehow loop around to the other side of a Fog Cloud then I know they're not well-intentioned and are just trying to squeeze whatever meager advantage they can get out of RAWyery and I can happily un-invite them.

[Chronos]

With a Fog Cloud, it's pretty clear (or, er, not-clear... I mean, it's clear that it's not clear. You know what I mean). We have real clouds of fog in real life, and we have a good intuition for how they work.

With nonmagical darkness, well, we also have that in real life. And it's uncommon to have a situation with a light source on the far side of a dark area, but people can still figure that one out.

But we don't, in our world, have anything like magical darkness, and there is indeed some dispute about how that works (this came up as a digression in the Wall of Fire thread).

[Hail Tempus]

We can't really expect the rules to go into gory detail about real-world effects. We know that, for example, gravity will make you plummet if you jump off a cliff. We need the rules to explain what the in-game effect of that is (you take 1d6 damage for each 10 feet of falling, capped at 20d6).

Similarly, we all know how fog works in the real world (light fog makes it hard to see, heavy fog can block all sight). Darkness in the real world can be "dispelled" with a regular light, and someone holding a light source in an otherwise dark area can be seen from a long distance. The game rules just tell us the relative effects of these various real-world conditions.

Finally, the Darkness spell (and other related spells like Light, Daylight etc.) pretty clearly spell out how they work:


Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness. If any of this spell’s area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.

So, you can't see through magical darkness (unless you have an ability that allows it).

I don't see any confusion with the various rules about how Fog Cloud, Darkness etc. work.

[R.Shackleford]

The rules don't say that you can see on the other side of heavy obscurment, just that trying to look into the area causes you to not be able to see said area (blinded).

5e was made with the idea of simple english and common sense.

There's no issue with RAW because the game assumes you will use common sense.

[Keravath]

Although I am sure there are different ways to argue it ... RAW says:

"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely"

I would tend to read that as normal english (and common sense) would indicate, the heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely including heavy foliage, fog and magical darkness. This would be vision into, out of or through since it blocks vision entirely.

Regular darkness would be the common sense exception since if it is completely dark then the area is heavily obscured. However, regular darkness does not prevent vision through it to a lit region elsewhere nor does regular darkness prevent vision between two lit regions otherwise surrounded by darkness.

[Merudo]

Although I am sure there are different ways to argue it ... RAW says:

"A heavily obscured area—such as darkness, opaque fog, or dense foliage—blocks vision entirely"

I would tend to read that as normal english (and common sense) would indicate, the heavily obscured area blocks vision entirely including heavy foliage, fog and magical darkness. This would be vision into, out of or through since it blocks vision entirely.

Regular darkness would be the common sense exception since if it is completely dark then the area is heavily obscured. However, regular darkness does not prevent vision through it to a lit region elsewhere nor does regular darkness prevent vision between two lit regions otherwise surrounded by darkness.

I agree that there's a distinction between mundane darkness & other forms of obscuration such as heavy foliage. I merely made this distinction explicit in the rules.

I'm sure many DMs don't see the point of my correction - these DMs probably already have their own house rules. The same DMs probably didn't care when WotC issued an errata about Vision rules in 2015 either.

However, a lot of DMs are unsure how vision & obscuration work, as judged by all the forum posts covering the topic. Currently, any DM looking for clarification about vision in the PHB will probably end up even more confused than before.

My suggested rule change / errata brings clarity to the rules & makes the "common sense" interpretation of the rules rigorous.

I'm not exactly going into the "gory details" about vision either, given I only add two sentences to the rules.

[Malifice]

You need rules to tell you you cant see on the the other side of a cloud of fog that you cant see into?

Really?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I rule it to work like in real life.

It make it easier for my players.

[Chronos]

OK, BloodSnake'sCha, how do Darkness spells work in real life?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

OK, BloodSnake'sCha, how do Darkness spells work in real life?

Well, it is an area with no light.

The two closes examples I have are Vantablack and Black holes.

[Astofel]

With a Fog Cloud, it's pretty clear (or, er, not-clear... I mean, it's clear that it's not clear. You know what I mean). We have real clouds of fog in real life, and we have a good intuition for how they work.

With nonmagical darkness, well, we also have that in real life. And it's uncommon to have a situation with a light source on the far side of a dark area, but people can still figure that one out.

But we don't, in our world, have anything like magical darkness, and there is indeed some dispute about how that works (this came up as a digression in the Wall of Fire thread).

I saw the stuff about magical darkness in the Wall of Fire thread, and that doesn't do it for me either. For anyone who didn't read it, the idea was that the Darkness spell actually just causes everything in the area to be silhouetted against everything behind it. Which doesn't jive with how the spell actually works; if I'm wearing a full black body suit but I'm standing in front of a brightly-lit white wall, it's not actually going to be any harder to hit me than if I wasn't wearing the suit i.e. you shouldn't have disadvantage to hit me.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I saw the stuff about magical darkness in the Wall of Fire thread, and that doesn't do it for me either. For anyone who didn't read it, the idea was that the Darkness spell actually just causes everything in the area to be silhouetted against everything behind it. Which doesn't jive with how the spell actually works; if I'm wearing a full black body suit but I'm standing in front of a brightly-lit white wall, it's not actually going to be any harder to hit me than if I wasn't wearing the suit i.e. you shouldn't have disadvantage to hit me.

But it doesn't cover you like a body suit, it make an area of it.

If you have a black ball on a black circle you will not be able to see the ball from the front.

[Astofel]

But it doesn't cover you like a body suit, it make an area of it.

If you have a black ball on a black circle you will not be able to see the ball from the front.

I know it doesn't, I was just repeating the argument I saw in the other thread and saying why I don't buy into it.

[Segev]

While I like the idea that you can see "through" magical darkness, just not into it, I will point out that, if we're using an analogous situation in the real world - for example, a dark street with street lamps lighting the sidewalks but the street itself being fully dark - you will still likely see silhouettes of things in the street where they block your line of sight to the lit area on the far side. That would be more than enough to not even have Disadvantage aiming at them; you see their outline and position quite clearly.

[MaxWilson]

I know it doesn't, I was just repeating the argument I saw in the other thread and saying why I don't buy into it.

You missed the point; BloodSnake'sCha pointed out a hole in your counterargument, to wit that the whole area (volume actually) cannot be illuminated, which more than justifies disadvantage to your attackers in many situations. Being silhouetted against a bright background just isn't going to happen in a typical Darkness dungeon scenario. You'll be a black hole on a black background when you're near a wall; and a black hole standing on a black floor against a shadowy background when you're far away from the wall. The RAW which gives attackers disadvantage for being unable to directly see you is simplistic but reasonable.


While I like the idea that you can see "through" magical darkness, just not into it, I will point out that, if we're using an analogous situation in the real world - for example, a dark street with street lamps lighting the sidewalks but the street itself being fully dark - you will still likely see silhouettes of things in the street where they block your line of sight to the lit area on the far side. That would be more than enough to not even have Disadvantage aiming at them; you see their outline and position quite clearly.

It's more than enough to justify you not being hidden, but you still can't see what they're doing, can't see what they're paying attention to, can't compensate for their dodges, etc. Considering that them not being able to see you is all that it takes for you to get advantage on your attacks, it appears that 5E combat has a lot of active engagement even between combatants at range, and disadvantage on your attacks for not being able to see them is a reasonable thing to do especially since in 5E you won't be in your optimal situation of being able to see their whole-body shadow backlit against a bright background when you're using a high-velocity rifle firing bullets that arrive essentially instantaneously in a flat trajectory before the enemy can react.

[Segev]

You missed the point; BloodSnake'sCha pointed out a hole in your counterargument, to wit that the whole area (volume actually) cannot be illuminated, which more than justifies disadvantage to your attackers in many situations. Being silhouetted against a bright background just isn't going to happen in a typical Darkness dungeon scenario. You'll be a black hole on a black background when you're near a wall; and a black hole standing on a black floor against a shadowy background when you're far away from the wall. The RAW which gives attackers disadvantage for being unable to directly see you is simplistic but reasonable.

If the silhouette thing IS a thing, however, it creates interesting incentive to cast a light source beyond the darkness. Whether throwing a torch, casting a light-creating spell with sufficient range, or just a light cantrip on a thrown rock, it would create the silhouettes needed and be an interesting - though rapidly likely to become common - tactic.

[Astofel]

You missed the point; BloodSnake'sCha pointed out a hole in your counterargument, to wit that the whole area (volume actually) cannot be illuminated, which more than justifies disadvantage to your attackers in many situations. Being silhouetted against a bright background just isn't going to happen in a typical Darkness dungeon scenario. You'll be a black hole on a black background when you're near a wall; and a black hole standing on a black floor against a shadowy background when you're far away from the wall. The RAW which gives attackers disadvantage for being unable to directly see you is simplistic but reasonable.

I better understand what's being said now, but I still disagree with the silhouette reading. It is easy to justify having disadvantage in many cases, but not enough to appease me. For instance, casting it in an open field in broad daylight, which is something that could plausibly happen in-game rather than some obscure edge-case.

Plus, there's the line about creatures with darkvision being unable to see through the darkness, 'through' meaning that they can't see the other side of it. With the silhouette reading this means that creatures without darkvision could see the silhouettes outlined against whatever background there is, but creatures with darkvision couldn't. I don't believe that's what the RAI of the spell is, I think that line is there to indicate that the Darkness blocks sight regardless of whether the observer has darkvision or not.

[MaxWilson]

If the silhouette thing IS a thing, however, it creates interesting incentive to cast a light source beyond the darkness. Whether throwing a torch, casting a light-creating spell with sufficient range, or just a light cantrip on a thrown rock, it would create the silhouettes needed and be an interesting - though rapidly likely to become common - tactic.

Sure. Counterplay of course would be "move the darkness closer to the light until it extinguishes it."

Also you'd probably want rules for exploiting silhouettes in non-Darkness scenarios, e.g. outdoors on a ridgeline against a bright sky. It could be that those scenarios wind up being more common than Darkness-against-a-bright-background-in-the-middle-distance.

There's a lot of room in 5E to make the vision rules less simplistic and more tactically interesting, as well as elevation rules (high ground), fatigue rules, and unarmed combat rules.


I better understand what's being said now, but I still disagree with the silhouette reading. It is easy to justify having disadvantage in many cases, but not enough to appease me. For instance, casting it in an open field in broad daylight, which is something that could plausibly happen in-game rather than some obscure edge-case.

Granted. Your discomfort is valid, because 5E is simplistic in many cases. Why do two blind men shooting longbows at each other at 200 yards have a better chance of hitting each other than a regular guy shooting at someone lying on the floor 10' in front of him? Because 5E is simplistic. Feel free to overrule the RAW in these cases and say "advantage from seeing the clear silhouette in broad daylight cancels out disadvantage for not being able to see the target. No penalty, go ahead and take the shot!"

(I can imagine similar cases where e.g. you shoot at an invisible target with no penalty because of being able to clearly see their outline in some foliage.)


Plus, there's the line about creatures with darkvision being unable to see through the darkness, 'through' meaning that they can't see the other side of it. With the silhouette reading this means that creatures without darkvision could see the silhouettes outlined against whatever background there is, but creatures with darkvision couldn't. I don't believe that's what the RAI of the spell is, I think that line is there to indicate that the Darkness blocks sight regardless of whether the observer has darkvision or not.

That's the opposite of the silhouette reading. The silhouette reading is that creatures within the Darkness area cannot be illuminated, and darkvision doesn't help.

[Segev]

Sure. Counterplay of course would be "move the darkness closer to the light until it extinguishes it."Oh, sure.


Also you'd probably want rules for exploiting silhouettes in non-Darkness scenarios, e.g. outdoors on a ridgeline against a bright sky. It could be that those scenarios wind up being more common than Darkness-against-a-bright-background-in-the-middle-distance.I don't think you need specialized rules for that; it's already covered. They're visible because they're in a well-lit area. If being against a bright sky on a ridge makes you MORE visible, then it just impacts the difficulty of a Perception check to notice you (anywhere from changing the DC to granting advantage to simply being automatic). None of which require more than the usual circumstance-considerations DMs put into such things all the time.


That's the opposite of the silhouette reading. The silhouette reading is that creatures within the Darkness area cannot be illuminated, and darkvision doesn't help.

Moreover, the "creatures with darkvision can't see through..." context is clearly that darkvision can't penetrate it. They still have normal sight, so if normal sighted creatures can see light from the far side, so can darkvisioned creatures.

[MaxWilson]

Oh, sure.

I don't think you need specialized rules for that; it's already covered.

I was thinking of the people who were arguing that it should improve your ability to hit them, i.e. grant advantage. I wouldn't drill down to that level of realism myself, especially not with muscle-powered low-velocity weapons.


Moreover, the "creatures with darkvision can't see through..." context is clearly that darkvision can't penetrate it. They still have normal sight, so if normal sighted creatures can see light from the far side, so can darkvisioned creatures.

Agreed.

[Astofel]

Well, I'm clearly very confused about something. I'll just stick to Darkness as a sphere of blackness that you can't see through to the other side of without something like Devil's Sight or other magical vision enhancements. That's how I always pictured the spell.

[Chronos]

I think that most of us picture it as a sphere of blackness. It's nice and easy to deal with. But the point is, that's not the way that nonmagical darkness works.

[Kyutaru]

I would think that whether vision works depends on whether light is permitted to pass through or not. Light is vision. Heavily obscured areas may include that vine patch in front of you or other foliage. Arrows may have a hard time passing through such a thing yet light may or may not (depending on how thick it is). A heavy fog clearly blocks vision and light yet does it also block a fire from spreading given what it's made of? Surely common sense plays into many terrain interactions in your campaign and that it is why the rules are not so expressly spelled out. Because rather than creating RAW arguments, it's up to the group to answer these questions.

[Malifice]

You cant see on the other side of magical darkness, unless you're looking at something illuminated by magical light of higher level than the magical darkness.

From the spell description:

'A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.'

Light (other than non magical light) cant pass through the darkness, or illuminate it, and even creatures with dark-vision cant see through it.

How is it possible to see something on the other side of magical darkness that blocks non magical light, when the light from the other side cant pass through the darkness to reach your eyes?

The effect of magical darkness in (say) a darkened room with a floodlight behind the darkness would be the darkness would cast a shadow on the other side of the floodlight (however that shadow cast by the area of darkness inverse to the floodlight could be seen through as normal by creatures with darkvision and the like, even though the darkness itself cant be).

A creature standing between the floodlight and the magical darkness wouldnt be able to see the floodlight, but they could see the light radiating around it, the walls on either side etc.

[Malifice]

An exception to the above would be a magical floodlight pumping out magical light on the other side of the darkness. That magical light would penetrate the magical darkness (presuming its high enough level), and would function just like a normal floodlight illuminating a dark room (i.e. bye bye darkness).

The darkness spell creates a big orb of black. You cant see through it to the other side, and it blocks non magical light penetrating it, unless that light is magical and of high enough level.

[Segev]

You cant see on the other side of magical darkness, unless you're looking at something illuminated by magical light of higher level than the magical darkness.

From the spell description:

'A creature with Darkvision can't see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can't illuminate it.'

Light (other than non magical light) cant pass through the darkness, or illuminate it, and even creatures with dark-vision cant see through it.

How is it possible to see something on the other side of magical darkness that blocks non magical light, when the light from the other side cant pass through the darkness to reach your eyes?

The effect of magical darkness in (say) a darkened room with a floodlight behind the darkness would be the darkness would cast a shadow on the other side of the floodlight (however that shadow cast by the area of darkness inverse to the floodlight could be seen through as normal by creatures with darkvision and the like, even though the darkness itself cant be).

A creature standing between the floodlight and the magical darkness wouldnt be able to see the floodlight, but they could see the light radiating around it, the walls on either side etc.
This is certainly one way to rule it. In which case, "magical darkness" seems more like "black fog" to me, but it's fine that it be such a thing.

It can be ruled differently, with the darkness effect preventing light from illuminating anything within it, but not preventing light from outside to pass through and be seen by others.

Or, if you abandon the notion of light being the "carrier" of information, but instead interpret sight as being a quality of being able to perceive things that are illuminated (a distinctly less modern-science conception but one which works fine in a magical setting, and does a much better job of supporting how darkvision works at all), then the fact that magical darkness prevents light from penetrating it to illuminate anything within only means things within are dark and unseeable except as possibly silhouettes against a lit background. That lit background is visible because it is illuminated, and there's no obstacle to line of sight, so normal-sighted creatures can see it just fine.

This is also why non-magical darkness doesn't prevent darkvision-enabled creatures from seeing: they can see because they can see, and light has little to do with it. Magical darkness prevents even their vision from seeing anything covered by it. Now, I can interpret "can't see through" in two ways: The way I found more obvious was, "darkvision doesn't let creatures see things in the magical darkness any better than sighted creatures can," while I can totally understand the alternative interpretation, "darkvision is stopped at its edge as if there were a wall, leaving only normal sight to see past it."

The latter interpretation would mean that a zone of magical darkness with no lit areas behind it would blacken out everything even to those with darkvision, like a wall of blackness. The former would mean that non-magical darkness beyond the magical darkness zone would still let creatures with darkvision see anything in the non-magical darkness that was within the range of their darkvision. And that really does come down to the DM's ruling on how he interprets it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or, if you abandon the notion of light being the "carrier" of information, but instead interpret sight as being a quality of being able to perceive things that are illuminated (a distinctly less modern-science conception but one which works fine in a magical setting, and does a much better job of supporting how darkvision works at all)...


To focus on this a bit--this is a key to understanding and reconciling D&D physics with common sense.

The D&D world does not work by modern quantum mechanics, newtonian mechanics, or whatever. There are no atoms, no molecules, no "distorted space-time", no photons, etc.

There are elements and energies. (Magical) darkness isn't just the absence of light, it's an equal but opposing thing to light itself. Light, you might think, "tags" things it illuminates as being visible. Fireball doesn't heat up the air, it imposes elemental fire on the area. Etc.

While the gross effects (those that can be seen without instrumentation or theory) are similar, the details of the causation (and thus the underlying logic) are completely dissimilar. It's more Aristotelian (with a bunch of curlicues and epicycles, plus a bunch of medieval alchemy poorly understood and stripped of the symbolism, plus other things) than modern. Analyzing it in modern terms leads to contradictions, while a proper theory that accepts its variant nature may not lead to contradictions.

[Ganders]

I sometimes wonder why darkness needs to be one way or the other.

Perhaps there could be two separate spells, both 2nd level, that cause two different effects. One spell creates a sphere of darkness that you cannot see through to the other side, and blinds people inside it. The other spell creates a sphere of darkness that you can see through to the other side and does not blind people inside it.

I'd be interested in seeing the different ways that the two spells get used, especially if one character learned both spells.